In mainstream political discourse, one cannot be considered “serious” until one endorses military action. We saw this in the wake of the Bush war in Iraq, when critics of the invasion were ruled out as legitimate political actors even after the proved to be the disaster we predicted it to be.
And we’re seeing it again as foreign policy wonks rush to support Donald Trump’s rash and seemingly impetuous response to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s chemical attack on his own people — giving it a thumbs up and arguing that it turned the buffoonish commander-in-chief into a real president.
Zakaria was joined in his admittedly qualified praise by liberal interventionists like Nicholas Kristof, who opposed the Iraq War on what can best be described as practical and not particularly convincing terms. Kristof endorsed the missile strike as a way to deter not just Assad but “the next dictator for turning to sarin” and to maintain the international “taboo on the use of chemical weapons.”
For an overstretched military, poison gas is a convenient way to terrify and subdue a population. That’s why Saddam Hussein used gas on Kurds in 1988, and why Bashar al-Assad has used gas against his own people in Syria. The best way for the world to change the calculus is to show that use of chemical weapons carries a special price — such as a military strike on an airbase.
Kristof also recognizes that Trump’s haphazard foreign policy may have created a “perceived … green light,” which made “it doubly important for Trump to show that neither Assad nor any leader can get away with using weapons of mass destruction.”
Kristof, as I said, is somewhat muted in his praise. Others are supporting the strike, while adding that it does not really address the long-term issues. David Ignatius in The Washington Post, for instance, called it “a decisive step that Obama resisted,” adding that there remains “a dilemma of how to bring political change to a Syria shattered by six years of civil war.”
Robert Kagan, a neocon who calls himself a “liberal interventionist,” agrees. He wrote — also on The Washington Post, which tends to be home to the most hawkish op-ed writers among the mainstream — that Friday’s missile strikes were “a critical first step toward protecting civilians from the threat of chemical weapons.” More tellingly, he gives Trump credit for “doing what the Obama administration refused to do,” while calling on Trump to do a lot more.
Thursday’s action needs to be just the opening salvo in a broader campaign not only to protect the Syrian people from the brutality of the Bashar al-Assad regime but also to reverse the downward spiral of U.S. power and influence in the Middle East and throughout the world. A single missile strike unfortunately cannot undo the damage done by the Obama administration’s policies over the past six years.
Zakaria, Kristof, Ignatius and Kagan do not operate on the same plane when it comes to military intervention and might best be described as offering a continuum on the use-of-force in humanitarian situations. Kristof is by far the least hawkish, reserving military might for very specific humanitarian aims. Ignatius is more hawkish, but still cautious. Kagan, of course, is a full-blown hawk.
What they share is that they are taken as serious voices on intervention in a way that others who should be given broader public platforms — Juan Cole and Andrew Bacevich, as examples — often are not. And they have used their platforms in an attempt to lend credibility to a very uncredible president.
Jeremy Scahill, a veteran war correspondent and critic, was withering in his response to Zakaria — and the resit of the interventionist punditocrisy:
“You know, Fareed Zakaria––if that guy could have sex with this cruise missile attack, I think he would do it,” Scahill argued to Brian Stelter, host of “Reliable Sources.” He also slammed Brian Williams after referring to the Pentagon video of the strike, as “beautiful.” Scahill said Williams appeared as if he was in “true love.”
As we move forward it will be interesting to see how the major media cover the aftermath — not just in their reporting but in their choice of sources. Will they continue their love affair “serious” analysts like Zakaria and Ignatius and their use of retired military (see the Scahill link for more on this), along with granting significant time to Congressional and Senate hawks (enough with John McCain and Lindsay Graham already), while generally freezing out critics? The lineup for the network morning shows this morning was instructive — the closest we got to critics of the airstrikes were the responses from Tim Kaine and Bernie Sanders, both of which focused on process and not on the morality of Trump’s actions.
This, ultimately, leaves military action as the default response, robbing the American people of a fully fleshed out debate over Trump’s actions and what our role — if any — should be in Syria.
Send me an e-mail.
Hank Kalet 